American CryptoFed has urged the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission to recognize its Locke governance token registration ahead of an Aug. 17 deadline that the organization says should take effect automatically under federal securities law.

According to a memorandum published by the SEC’s Crypto Task Force, agency staff recently met with American CryptoFed DAO founders Scott Moeller and Xiaomeng Zhou to discuss the nonprofit’s latest registration efforts, its governance token, and legal questions surrounding decentralized organizations.

The meeting also covered the group’s long-running push to bring the Locke token under the SEC’s reporting framework.

Locke token registration moves toward Aug. 17 milestone

During the meeting, American CryptoFed told SEC staff that it converted into a Wyoming unincorporated nonprofit association under the state’s UNA/DUNA Act last month. The organization said the restructuring forms part of its latest effort to satisfy regulatory requirements after years of engagement with the agency.

The nonprofit also confirmed that it filed a Form 10 last month to register the Locke governance token as a reporting company under the Securities Exchange Act of 1934.

According to American CryptoFed, the filing should become automatically effective 60 days after submission, setting Aug. 17 as the expected date unless the SEC takes action beforehand.

The filing follows the SEC’s decision in February to dismiss earlier administrative proceedings involving the organization. As described in the Crypto Task Force memorandum, the dismissal encouraged American CryptoFed to consider alternative registration steps rather than ending its pursuit of federal compliance.

American CryptoFed has sought SEC recognition for the Locke token since 2021. During that period, the organization said it revised parts of its proposal, including changes influenced by SEC Commissioner Hester Peirce’s proposed token safe harbor framework, which was designed to give qualifying blockchain projects additional time before securities laws fully apply.

DAO outlines trading and disclosure framework

Looking beyond registration, American CryptoFed told SEC staff it plans to make Locke governance tokens available for trading after receiving regulatory clearance. Initial recipients of the token would be able to trade through the Uniswap decentralized exchange, according to the organization’s presentation.

While acknowledging the compliance challenges associated with decentralized trading, American CryptoFed argued that required disclosures could still be maintained through existing reporting obligations.

Its presentation pointed to Forms 144, 3, 4 and 5 as mechanisms for meeting insider and securities reporting requirements, while also citing SEC guidance stating that the agency “will not normally intervene” in disputes involving the removal of restrictive legends from securities.

Separate from the registration process, American CryptoFed continues to promote its proposal for a decentralized monetary system operating alongside the U.S. Federal Reserve. The organization has said the model is designed to eliminate inflation and deflation, remove transaction costs, and support maximum employment through a stablecoin-linked financial network.

Legislative developments could also influence those plans. American CryptoFed argued that progress on the CLARITY Act would provide a more defined regulatory framework for digital assets.

Separately, crypto-friendly lawmakers, including Senator Cynthia Lummis, have indicated they want the Senate to advance the legislation before the chamber begins its August recess, although the bill’s timing and final outcome remain uncertain.

Liquidation is the moment crypto’s leverage machinery takes your collateral, and it happens two very different ways: exchanges force-closing leveraged trades, and DeFi lending protocols auctioning borrowers’ collateral to keeper bots. This guide explains both systems, the health factor math, the bonus liquidators earn, why liquidations cascade into crashes, and how to read the daily liquidation numbers everyone quotes and few understand.

On a single day this week, roughly $410 million of leveraged crypto positions were liquidated inside 24 hours, most of them longs, and the number scrolled past in headlines the way weather does. Days above a billion dollars are not rare; across 2025, more than $150 billion in positions were liquidated across venues. Liquidation is the most routine catastrophe in crypto, the mechanism by which every form of on-chain and exchange leverage enforces its one non-negotiable rule: the debt gets paid, and if you will not pay it, your collateral will.

What the headlines flatten is that liquidation in crypto is actually two distinct systems wearing one name. The first lives on derivatives exchanges, where leveraged perpetual-futures positions are force-closed when losses approach the trader’s margin. The second lives in DeFi lending protocols like Aave and Compound, where overcollateralized loans are enforced by an open market of bots, called keepers or liquidators, that repay underwater borrowers’ debts in exchange for their collateral at a discount. The two systems share a purpose, keeping lenders and venues solvent without trusting anyone, and differ in almost every mechanical detail, and understanding both is close to understanding how crypto’s entire credit machine holds together.

This guide covers the whole territory: why liquidation exists at all, the derivatives version in brief with its margin math and mark prices, the DeFi lending version in depth with health factors, thresholds, bonuses, and the keeper economy, the anatomy of a liquidation cascade, what the insurance funds and bad-debt backstops do when liquidation itself fails, and the practical playbook for keeping your own positions alive.

Why liquidation exists: solvency without trust

Every liquidation system answers the same question: how does a lender who cannot sue you, cannot call you, and does not know who you are make sure a loan gets repaid? Traditional finance answers with identity, courts, and credit scores. Crypto answers with overcollateralization and automation: you post more value than you borrow, and the moment the cushion between your collateral’s value and your debt shrinks toward zero, the system sells your collateral before the cushion is gone. Done correctly, the lender never takes a loss, because the sale happens while the collateral still covers the debt.

Everything else is implementation detail, and the details matter enormously. Liquidate too late and the protocol eats bad debt; liquidate too early and borrowers are punished for noise; misprice the collateral for one block and either error happens at scale. Liquidation design is where a credit system’s real risk decisions live, which is why it deserves more attention than the afterthought paragraph it usually gets.

Liquidation on exchanges: the derivatives version

On derivatives venues, liquidation is the endgame of leverage. A trader posts margin and opens a position several times that size; the exchange continuously marks the position against a manipulation-resistant mark price; and when losses erode the margin to the venue’s maintenance threshold, the engine seizes and closes the position. At 10x leverage a roughly 10 percent adverse move is fatal; at 50x, about 2 percent. The full mechanics, initial versus maintenance margin, mark versus index price, cross versus isolated margin, are covered in this publication’s perps guide, and two points from that machinery matter for what follows.

First, the mark price, an index-anchored, smoothed price, exists so that a momentary wick on one venue’s order book cannot liquidate everyone; you are liquidated against the market’s consensus price, not the last print. Second, when a position is so far underwater that closing it at market recovers less than the debt, exchanges reach for backstops: an insurance fund absorbs the shortfall, and if the fund is exhausted, auto-deleveraging forcibly closes profitable traders on the opposite side to balance the books, a mechanism that cost profitable traders over $50 million during one violent stretch in late 2025. Exchange liquidation, in other words, is a private matter between you and the venue’s risk engine, with socialized losses as the final resort.

Liquidation in DeFi lending: the health factor and the keepers

DeFi lending liquidation is a different animal, public, permissionless, and run by an open market of hunters, and it is the version most explanations skip.

Start with the loan. On a protocol like Aave, you deposit collateral, say ETH, and borrow against it, say USDC, up to a loan-to-value cap well below 100 percent. Each collateral asset carries a liquidation threshold, the LTV at which the position becomes seizable; for major assets this might sit around 80-83 percent, meaning a loan is safe while the debt stays below that fraction of the collateral’s value. The protocol compresses your entire position into one number, the health factor: the value of your collateral weighted by its liquidation thresholds, divided by your debt. Above 1, you are safe. At exactly 1, your position crosses the line. Below 1, anyone on earth may liquidate you.

And anyone does, because liquidation is a paid job. A liquidator repays some or all of your debt to the protocol and receives, in exchange, your collateral worth what they repaid plus a liquidation bonus, typically around 5 percent for major assets and more for volatile ones. Repay $10,000 of an unhealthy borrower’s USDC debt, receive roughly $10,500 of their ETH; the borrower’s remaining collateral shrinks by the bonus, which is the penalty they pay for crossing the line. Most protocols cap how much of a position can be liquidated in one bite, commonly 50 percent of the debt, called the close factor, so a borrower who dips just below 1 is partially liquidated back to health rather than wiped out, though deeply underwater positions can be fully seized.

The hunters are keeper bots: automated programs that watch every loan on every protocol, simulate health factors against live prices, and race to submit liquidation transactions the instant a position crosses 1. The race is ferocious, the bonus goes to whoever lands first, gas auctions and the private relays of the MEV supply chain decide winners by milliseconds, and the capital to repay the debt is very often flash-borrowed, so the entire operation, borrow the repayment, liquidate, sell the seized collateral, repay the flash loan, pocket the bonus, completes inside one atomic transaction. This is the part outsiders find alien: DeFi does not employ a risk department. It posts a bounty and lets mercenaries keep the system solvent, and it works, most of the time, better than the systems it replaced.

One number rules everything above: the price. Health factors are computed from oracle prices, so the entire lending-liquidation apparatus inherits the oracle’s integrity. A stale or manipulated feed liquidates healthy borrowers or spares doomed ones, and oracle failure is behind a large share of DeFi’s historical bad-debt events, which is why serious protocols use aggregated, median-filtered feeds and why borrowers should know which oracle guards their loan.

A worked example: one loan’s journey to liquidation

Numbers make the machinery concrete, so follow a single position from opening to seizure.

A borrower deposits 10 ETH as collateral with ETH at $1,800, collateral value $18,000, on a protocol where ETH carries an 82.5 percent liquidation threshold. They borrow 10,000 USDC, a 55.6 percent loan-to-value, comfortable territory. Their health factor at opening is the threshold-weighted collateral over debt: 18,000 times 0.825, divided by 10,000, equals 1.485. The position can absorb a meaningful drawdown; solving for the price at which the health factor hits 1 gives the liquidation price: debt divided by threshold divided by ETH quantity, 10,000 / 0.825 / 10, which is about $1,212. ETH must fall roughly 33 percent from entry before the keepers come.

Now the market delivers exactly that. ETH slides over two weeks to $1,250, health factor 1.03, and the borrower, watching, does nothing, reasoning the bounce is near. A weekend wick takes ETH to $1,195 for eleven minutes. At $1,212 the health factor crossed 1, and within a block or two a keeper acts: with a 50 percent close factor, it repays 5,000 USDC of the debt and, with a 5 percent bonus, claims $5,250 worth of ETH, about 4.39 ETH at the wick price. The borrower now holds 5.61 ETH backing 5,000 USDC of debt; the health factor resets to roughly 1.11, alive but poorer. The eleven-minute wick cost them $250 in bonus plus the spread on collateral sold at the local bottom, and if the fall had continued, subsequent liquidations could each take their bite until nothing remained.

The counterfactuals are the lesson. Repaying 2,000 USDC of debt at any point before the wick would have lifted the liquidation price to about $970, far below the wick; adding 2 ETH of collateral would have done similar work; and either action would have cost transaction fees measured in dollars against a penalty measured in hundreds. Liquidation almost never happens without a long, visible approach, the health factor decays in public, on-chain, for anyone to see, and the borrowers it takes are overwhelmingly the ones who watched it come.

The same arithmetic scaled up explains the professional side. A keeper repaying $5,000 for $5,250 earned 5 percent on capital deployed for one block, capital that was itself flash-borrowed, meaning the return on the keeper’s own funds, gas and infrastructure aside, approaches the absurd. That yield is the bounty that guarantees no unhealthy loan survives long, and competition for it is why the bounty has not needed to be larger.

Cascades: how liquidations become crashes

Liquidations do not just respond to price moves; past a threshold, they cause them, and the feedback loop is the mechanism behind many of crypto’s sharpest candles.

The anatomy is simple. A price drop pushes a tranche of leveraged positions past their liquidation points. Liquidation is executed by selling the collateral or closing the longs, which is sell pressure, which pushes the price lower, which liquidates the next tranche, which sells, and so on down the order book. Thin liquidity amplifies every leg, because each forced sale moves the price further, the slippage cost that large orders always pay becoming, in aggregate, the crash itself. The cascade ends where the leverage does: when the liquidatable positions are exhausted, the forced selling stops, and price frequently snaps back, leaving a wick that marks exactly how deep the leverage ran. Funding rates, open interest, and liquidation heatmaps let traders estimate where those clusters sit, which is why the derivatives data services publish liquidation maps and why sophisticated actors sometimes push price toward known clusters to set the dominoes off.

DeFi lending adds its own cascade variant with correlated collateral. When a widely used collateral asset depegs or gaps, every loan built on it sickens simultaneously; the 2022 stETH episode, where a liquid staking token’s discount stressed a leverage loop built on it, remains the canonical case study of one asset’s wobble propagating through lending markets as a synchronized health-factor collapse. The lesson generalizes: your liquidation risk is not just your own leverage but everyone else’s leverage in the same collateral.

When liquidation fails: bad debt and backstops

The system’s last chapter is what happens when selling the collateral does not cover the debt, because prices gapped too fast or liquidity vanished. On exchanges, the insurance fund pays, then auto-deleveraging conscripts the winners. In DeFi, the shortfall becomes bad debt on the protocol’s books, and each protocol has its own waterfall: reserve funds accumulated from fees, safety modules of staked tokens that can be slashed to cover deficits, or, historically and controversially, governance deciding who eats the loss. A protocol’s bad-debt record and backstop design are, alongside its oracle, the two lines of due diligence that matter more than its advertised yields, because they are the difference between a lender that survived its worst day and one that socialized it.

One structural nuance completes the lending picture: not all collateral is liquidated the same way. Fixed-bonus seizure of the kind in the worked example is the dominant design, but several protocols instead auction the collateral, Dutch auctions that start above market and decay until a keeper bites, which returns more value to borrowers in calm conditions and can struggle in chaos, as an infamous episode of zero-bid auctions during a 2020 crash proved when network congestion let liquidators win collateral for nothing. Auction versus fixed-bonus, close factors, per-asset thresholds, and oracle choice together form each protocol’s liquidation personality, and experienced borrowers read those parameters the way credit analysts read covenants, because they are the covenants.

Reading the liquidation tape like a professional

The daily liquidation statistics are among crypto’s most quoted and least understood numbers, and extracting their real information takes three habits.

First, read the ratio before the total. A $400 million day that is 63 percent longs says the market fell into a crowded long book; the same total at 85 percent shorts, like the recent session where Bitcoin short liquidations dominated on a squeeze higher, says the opposite: bears were crowded and the move ran them over. The skew identifies which side was overextended, which is the tradable information; the headline total mostly measures volatility times leverage.

Second, treat totals as minimums. Public figures aggregate what venues report, and reporting conventions differ, some exchanges publish only samples of liquidation events, so true forced-closure volume typically exceeds the printed number. Comparisons across time are still meaningful because the undercounting is roughly consistent; comparisons across venues are not.

Third, connect the tape to positioning data. Liquidations are the discharge; open interest and funding rates are the stored charge. Rising open interest with extreme funding is leverage accumulating on one side, the precondition for a cascade; a liquidation spike that coincides with an open-interest collapse means the leverage actually left the system, which is what durable local bottoms and tops are made of, whereas a spike that barely dents open interest means the crowd reloaded and the fuel remains. The heatmap services that estimate where liquidation clusters sit at each price complete the picture, showing the magnets that sharp moves gravitate toward.

None of this predicts direction on its own; all of it describes the terrain, and traders who read the terrain stop being surprised by which moves extend and which reverse violently at a wick.

Keeping your positions alive: the practical playbook

For a borrower or leveraged trader, all of the machinery above compresses into a few habits. Know your number: the liquidation price on a perp, the health factor on a loan, and the oracle both are computed from. Size for the gap, not the trend, because liquidation happens at the wick, not the close, and weekend and low-liquidity hours produce the worst wicks. Prefer isolated margin when experimenting, so one dead trade cannot drain an account, and keep a repayment buffer ready, since topping up collateral or repaying a slice of debt is dramatically cheaper than the liquidation bonus. Watch the crowd as well as yourself: extreme funding, ballooning open interest, and dense liquidation clusters near price are the weather report for cascades. And read the daily liquidation totals correctly: $410 million liquidated, 63 percent longs is not a death toll but a positioning report, telling you which side was crowded, how much leverage just left the system, and, often, why the price wicked exactly where it did.

Liquidation is easy to resent and hard to replace. It is the reason DeFi lending survived drawdowns that killed centralized lenders whose loan books ran on trust and phone calls, and the reason a perp exchange can offer 50x leverage to anonymous traders and remain solvent by Tuesday. The machine is impartial to the point of cruelty, it will take a sleeping borrower’s collateral over a five-minute wick, and its impartiality is precisely the property everything else is built on. The practical wisdom is old and short: the machine cannot be negotiated with, so stay out of its reach.

A closing word on the system’s deeper logic. Liquidation is crypto’s replacement for the entire apparatus of credit assessment, and the trade it makes is time for capital. A bank spends weeks deciding whether you will repay over years; a protocol spends no time at all deciding, demands surplus collateral instead, and enforces continuously. The design is capital-inefficient by construction, you must lock more than you borrow, and in exchange it achieves something credit systems never had: solvency that does not depend on being right about anyone. Every innovation in the space, cross-margin, isolated pools, dynamic thresholds, liquidation auctions that replace fixed bonuses with competitive bidding to return more value to borrowers, is an attempt to soften the capital inefficiency without surrendering the trustlessness, and the frontier of lending design is exactly that negotiation. Understanding liquidation is therefore not just self-defense for the leveraged; it is understanding the load-bearing wall of the whole on-chain credit system, the mechanism every yield, every stablecoin loan, and every leveraged position in DeFi quietly rests on. The wall holds because the machine is merciless, and the machine is merciless so that no one has to be trusted, which is, for better and worse, the entire proposition this industry was built to test.

And for readers who came to this piece from a headline, the translation service one last time: liquidations hit $X billion is not news that money vanished, most of it moved from the margin accounts of the crowded side to the other side of their trades, and it is not a prediction of anything. It is an after-action report on where leverage lived, published by the only market on earth candid enough to print its casualties in real time.

Disclaimer: This article is for educational purposes only and does not constitute investment advice. Leverage and DeFi lending carry significant risk, including total loss of collateral. Protocol parameters cited are typical values as of July 8, 2026, and vary by platform. Always do your own research.

Frequently asked questions

DOGEBALL is drawing interest from investors comparing traditional stocks with crypto presales as they seek higher-growth digital asset opportunities.

Many retail investors stand at a financial crossroads trying to decide where to allocate capital. Traditional stock markets have offered stable, long-term wealth creation for generations. In contrast, the digital asset ecosystem presents rapid technological shifts and massive capital efficiency. Deciding which asset class suits financial goals requires analyzing utility, volatility, and growth horizons.

For growth-focused investors, identifying the best crypto presale to invest in July can change an entire portfolio’s trajectory. Right now, a utility project called DOGEBALL (DOGEBALL) illustrates why many modern investors are shifting their attention from traditional equity shares to decentralized network structures.

Is buying crypto better than stocks?

The best crypto presale to invest in July bridges the gap between these two models by bringing real-world business utility to digital finance. DOGEBALL is built on a custom Ethereum Layer 2 blockchain called DOGECHAIN. This ecosystem blends play-to-earn gaming with global financial rails. It allows users to send crypto instantly while the receiver gets local fiat currency directly in their bank account. By completely eliminating slow, expensive middleman networks like wire transfers or traditional remittance services, it offers a real utility value that stocks struggle to match.

What is the smartest thing to invest in right now?

The smartest investment strategy always involves identifying undervalued assets before they achieve mainstream public awareness. The best crypto presale to invest in July has already raised over 308K+ from more than 1060+ active participants. It is currently operating in Stage 11 at an early entry price of just $0.001689 per token.

The project has partnered with a specialist Web3 company to manage its official public exchange listing at a confirmed launch price of $0.015. Let us look at a clear math breakdown of what this means for early capital:

Initial Investment: $500

Tokens Secured at Presale Rate ($0.001689): 296,033 tokens

Value at Official Launch Price ($0.015): 296,033 * $0.015 = $4,440

Potential ROI: 787% (8.8x return)

Investors can maximize this trajectory by using the active bonus code DB75. Applying this code grants a 75% bonus in extra tokens on top of their purchase. To support asset scarcity, the team permanently burned 4bn tokens on Monday 11th May 2026, permanently removing 20% of the entire presale allocation.

Prices are low today, but this opportunity will not last. The presale runs on a strict timed schedule spanning 22 total stages. Every single Monday at 21:00 UTC, the current stage ends and a new stage begins with an automatic price increase. Buying early in the week secures the lowest possible entry point before the next tier rise.

How much will $500 of DOGEBALL be worth in 5 years?

At the confirmed exchange launch price of $0.015, a $500 investment made today scales directly to $4440 before public trading begins. Over a 5-year macro window, the value depends on ecosystem adoption.

The native $DOGEBALL token is used to pay for all transaction fees across the entire global payment network. This structural framework creates automated, constant buying pressure. As the DogePay application scales to support 30+ global currencies with zero foreign exchange fees, this ongoing token utility and organic demand could drive long-term valuations significantly higher than the initial listing price.

What is more risky, stocks or crypto?

DOGEBALL addresses asset security directly. Its smart contracts hold a flawless 100% audit score from Coinsult, confirming structural code safety. Furthermore, the DOGEBALL presale mitigates short-term market volatility by utilizing a fixed, predictable 22-stage timed pricing model, giving early buyers an insulated runway of growth before the asset transitions to public exchanges.

For more information, visit the official website, Telegram, and X.

FAQs for the Best Crypto Presale to Invest in July

Is July a bullish month for crypto?

July historically shows strong upward momentum as summer liquidity patterns settle down. For utility-driven assets like the DOGEBALL crypto presale 2026, this positive seasonal sentiment drives active buyer volume right into the timed presale stages before exchange listing.

What is the best upcoming crypto to invest in?

DOGEBALL is a top choice because it combines Layer 2 gaming with direct bank offramps. Unlike regular tokens, it features built-in scarcity through a 4bn token burn and has a guaranteed launch price target of $0.015.

What is the next 1000x crypto?

Cryptos with massive growth potential require micro-cap pricing and real daily utility. DOGEBALL fits this matrix by powering global remittance rails with zero foreign exchange fees, which creates permanent network demand and long-term token value.

Which month is best to buy crypto?

July offers an ideal window to buy early-stage presales before macro market expansions take off. Buying into DOGEBALL right now allows investors to secure tokens at a low rate before weekly Monday price hikes occur.

What are the top 3 cryptos to buy?

Bitcoin provides market safety, Ethereum offers developer infrastructure, and DOGEBALL provides high-margin utility growth. DOGEBALL stands out by letting users claim a 75% token bonus right now using the code DB75 during its active presale.

Paradigm has raised $1.2 billion for its fourth fund, which will expand the crypto venture capital firm’s investments into artificial intelligence and related technologies.

The company said on Wednesday that its latest fund will invest “first in crypto, and now across AI, robotics and other frontiers.”

“We continue investing in crypto and the reinvention of markets and the financial system,” Paradigm added, highlighting its investments in the crypto perpetuals exchange Hyperliquid and the prediction markets platform Kalshi.

Paradigm launched in 2018 and has raised more than $4 billion for three funds focused on crypto. Its interest in AI follows a trend of originally crypto-focused companies that have been lured to the lucrative and fast-growing sector.

Source: Matt Huang

The Wall Street Journal reported in February that Paradigm was seeking to raise $1.5 billion for a new fund that would invest in AI and robotics.

The company’s management reportedly decided to broaden its investments as it didn’t want to be restricted and miss out on attractive deals. There was also a noted overlap between crypto and AI, such as with AI agents.

Crypto exchanges such as Crypto.com and Coinbase have made big bets on AI agents, offering the technology to their users and updating their platforms to cater to the bots.

Crypto funding sinks as AI funding peaks

Other crypto venture companies have moved beyond crypto, including Framework Ventures, which raised $400 million for its fourth fund last month for investments in crypto as well as AI, robotics and energy.

In May, crypto venture firm Haun Ventures raised $1 billion to back crypto startups and expanded into AI for the first time.

Global venture funding hit a record $510 billion in the first half of 2026, a new record for half-year investments that surpassed the $440 billion invested across all of last year, Crunchbase reported on July 2.

Related: Morpho’s $175M raise shows where crypto VC money is flowing

AI companies made up the majority of the investment, with OpenAI and Anthropic accounting for more than 40% of funding in the first half of the year.

Meanwhile, crypto captured only a portion of all venture flows, with funding into crypto in the first half hitting $10.8 billion, according to Cryptorank.

Paradigm highlighted that some of its non-crypto investments included the autonomous drone delivery service Zipline, the robotic metal fabrication platform SendCutSend and the AI company Nous Research, which created the open-source AI model Hermes Agent.

It added that it would “continue to research and build where it accelerates” the crypto industry, and noted the blockchain tools Foundry and Reth and the AI projects EVMbench and Centaur.

Features: AI’s power crunch turns Bitcoin miners’ grid access into an asset

Decentralized finance (DeFi) analytics platform Zapper announced it will shut down next month, becoming the latest crypto platform to fold amid a market downturn.

In a post to X on Wednesday, Zapper CEO Seb Audet said Zapper’s website, mobile app and API services would shut down on Aug. 3, marking the end of a seven-year run after receiving backing from the likes of billionaire investor Mark Cuban in 2021.

“We evaluated a number of different options, pursued some to the fullest extent possible, and came to the realization that an orderly wind down is the best course of action,” Audet said.

While Zapper didn’t share the reasons behind its decision to shut down, Audet hinted in a response that the shutdown was due to falling demand, stating: “At the end of the day, the market decides.”

Cointelegraph reached out for comment but didn’t receive an immediate response.

Source: Zapper

Zapper adds to a growing list of crypto platforms that have shut as crypto market sentiment has sunk to near all-time lows and venture capital funding has become harder to secure.

Cardano-based analytics platform TapTools made a similar decision to shut down in June, as did Bitcoin-focused DeFi platform Botanix a week later, citing weak demand for Bitcoin DeFi.

SBI’s crypto unit, decentralized email service Dmail, and nonfungible token marketplaces like Nifty Gateway and Rodeo have also sunset operations this year amid a broader fall in NFT activity.

Related: Yield Guild Games cuts 35 staff, shuts game publisher to focus on AI

Zapper was founded in 2019 and put itself on the map by winning one of Kyber’s DeFi Hackathon events later that year, which helped it raise a $1.5 million seed round.

It also raised $15 million in a Series A funding round in May 2021, led by Framework Ventures, with Cuban, Coinbase Ventures and the Ashton Kutcher-founded Sound Ventures also contributing.

Crypto traders use platforms like Zapper to track token prices, follow DeFi trends and discover new protocols. Zapper also allowed traders to connect their wallets to monitor positions, manage liquidity pools and yield farms and learn about upcoming airdrops.

Audet said the Zapper team scaled its product to over 2 million monthly active users and oversaw more than $13 billion in processed transactions at its peak.

However, Zapper has experienced major setbacks throughout its journey, including in April 2025, when it suffered a social engineering attack. The breach allowed attackers to temporarily hijack the platform’s domain and redirect unsuspecting users to a malicious page embedded with phishing traps.

Securing VC funding has become a challenge

While crypto VC funding increased 57.6% year-on-year to $4.21 billion in the second quarter, the spread of capital has become far more concentrated, with the overall deal count having now fallen nine times over the last 10 quarters, according to RootData’s VC dashboard.

Quarterly change in crypto VC funding and deal count since Q1 2020. Source: RootData

Features: From Bitcoin critics to blockchain believers: The 5 biggest crypto backflips

OpenAI has secured U.S. government clearance for its GPT-5.6 model, removing a key regulatory hurdle as traders turn their attention to the company’s pre-IPO perpetual futures market.

Axios first reported that the U.S. Department of Commerce has granted general permission for OpenAI to roll out GPT-5.6, paving the way for a wider release of ChatGPT and its API as early as Thursday.

The approval follows a review by the Commerce Department’s Center for AI Standards and Innovation, which evaluated the frontier AI model under a voluntary agreement signed by President Donald Trump that gives regulators up to 30 days to assess advanced AI systems before public deployment.

During the review process, OpenAI stationed a dedicated technical team in Washington, D.C., to answer regulators’ questions directly, a step Axios described as unusual. The company is preparing three GPT-5.6 variants for launch: Sol as the flagship model, Terra as a balanced option, and Luna as a lower-cost, faster version.

Approval removes a key uncertainty for OpenAI traders

With the regulatory review complete, attention has quickly turned to OpenAI’s pre-IPO perpetual futures, which already trade on crypto platforms including Coinbase and Binance.

As crypto.news previously reported, Coinbase introduced OPENAI-PERP through its Everything Exchange initiative in June, allowing eligible non-U.S. users to gain exposure to OpenAI’s private-market valuation through perpetual futures settled in USDC. The contracts have no expiration date and are designed to convert automatically if OpenAI eventually lists its shares publicly.

The latest approval gives traders a fresh catalyst to price into those contracts because GPT-5.6 is expected to become the company’s next flagship commercial release. Even so, Coinbase has warned that OpenAI’s eventual IPO price could still end up as much as 25% above or below the perpetual futures price at the time of listing.

Industry data cited by CryptoQuant points to growing interest in pre-IPO crypto products. According to the analytics firm, trading volume across the sector climbed to $12 billion in June 2026 from just $2 million in March.

Crypto.news previously noted that the infrastructure for trading OpenAI and Anthropic pre-IPO futures has already been established, allowing markets to react immediately to company-specific developments such as regulatory approvals.

OpenAI continues building its AI business ahead of any listing

Recent corporate developments have added to investor attention surrounding OpenAI. Earlier this month, as crypto.news reported, SoftBank Group completed a second $10 billion investment in the company, moving the Japanese conglomerate closer to fulfilling its previously announced $30 billion follow-on commitment.

OpenAI has also continued investing in its own infrastructure. Last month, chief executive Sam Altman introduced Jalapeño, the company’s first custom-built AI chip developed with Broadcom. 

According to OpenAI, the processor is optimized for inference workloads powering products such as ChatGPT, Codex, and future AI agents, reducing the company’s dependence on third-party hardware suppliers.

Still, enthusiasm around pre-IPO contracts has not always translated into immediate gains. Crypto.news previously reported that Anthropic’s pre-IPO perpetual futures fell 7% within 24 hours of their Coinbase debut despite strong interest in the company.

By contrast, the SpaceX pre-IPO market generated heavy retail participation before its public listing, with the stock later opening about 13% above its IPO price, providing an example that OpenAI traders are now watching closely as GPT-5.6 moves toward public release.

The Bank of England has reaffirmed that its work on a potential digital pound has remained independent despite claims that political lobbying may have influenced its approach.

Bailey says CBDC policy remained independent

According to The Guardian, Bank of England Governor Andrew Bailey said the central bank did not alter its position on a potential central bank digital currency after meeting Reform UK leader Nigel Farage.

The newspaper reported that Bailey made the comments in a letter written after the meeting, which covered several topics, including cryptocurrencies.

In the letter obtained by The Guardian, Bailey reportedly said the Bank of England is capable of identifying attempts to influence its policymaking. He also wrote that no policy changes had resulted from Farage’s interventions after the meeting.

Bailey’s response came after Farage publicly said he had discussed cryptocurrencies with the governor. According to The Guardian, Bailey confirmed the meeting took place but rejected any suggestion that the conversation affected the Bank’s work on a digital pound.

Farage has repeatedly criticized central bank digital currencies, arguing they could increase financial surveillance. He previously said he would “rather go to prison” than live under such a system, a position he has maintained while opposing the proposed digital pound.

Farage faces scrutiny as digital pound research continues

Separately, Farage has resigned as the Member of Parliament for Clacton and will contest a by-election while parliamentary investigations into his financial declarations continue.

During an X livestream on Tuesday, Farage said he stepped down so local voters could decide whether he should continue representing the constituency instead of waiting for the outcome of the investigations.

Farage said he had “done nothing wrong” and maintained that he had not broken any laws or misused public money. He also confirmed that the UK parliamentary standards commissioner is investigating two matters involving gifts he received from crypto billionaire Christopher Harborne and George Cottrell, who has a previous fraud conviction and has been linked to a crypto casino.

According to Farage, the money provided by Harborne was an unconditional gift that would be used to pay for his personal security because of threats and attacks against him. He said seeking re-election would allow voters in Clacton to judge his actions directly.

Meanwhile, The Guardian reported that the UK’s National Crime Agency is investigating several transactions involving other senior Reform UK figures over suspected money laundering. The report did not say that Farage was part of that investigation.

While those political developments continue, the Bank of England has kept its digital pound project under review. In a recent update, the central bank said no decision has been made on whether to introduce a digital pound and added that any launch would require further analysis and public consultation.

Earlier this year, the Bank of England began a six-month pilot involving 18 companies to test how tokenized assets could be settled using central bank money. According to the central bank, the program is designed to examine settlement technology as officials continue evaluating whether a digital pound would have a role in the UK’s financial system.

Crypto exchanges now let you trade Tesla, gold, oil, and even pre-IPO companies like SpaceX and OpenAI as perpetual futures, around the clock, with leverage, without owning a single share. This guide explains how RWA perpetuals work, how a contract tracks an asset the blockchain cannot see, what happens when the stock market closes and the perp does not, and the real risks behind the most ambitious expansion perps have ever attempted.

The most traded instrument in crypto has started eating the rest of finance. Perpetual futures, the leveraged, never-expiring contracts that dominate crypto volume, are no longer limited to Bitcoin and Ethereum: on a growing list of venues you can now open a leveraged position on Tesla stock at 3 a.m. on a Sunday, short gold from a self-custodied wallet, or trade contracts tracking companies like SpaceX, OpenAI, and Anthropic that have never listed on any stock exchange at all. Coinbase’s rollout of pre-IPO perpetuals on exactly those names made headlines this month, and decentralized venues have quietly listed perps on US equities, indices, foreign exchange, and commodities for over a year.

These instruments are called RWA perpetuals, perps on real-world assets, and they represent something truly new: synthetic, around-the-clock, globally accessible exposure to assets that live entirely outside crypto, delivered through contracts that never touch the underlying. No shares are bought, no gold is vaulted, no barrel of oil changes hands. The entire construction rests on a price feed and a payment mechanism, which is either an elegant triumph of financial engineering or a stack of risks wearing a stock ticker, depending on which part of it you are looking at.

This guide explains RWA perps from first principles: what they are and how they differ from ordinary crypto perps and from tokenized stocks, the oracle machinery that lets a blockchain track an off-chain price, the strange problems that arise when a 24/7 contract tracks a market that closes on weekends, the pre-IPO frontier where perps track companies with no public price at all, the legal battle over what these contracts even are, and the honest risk list anyone should read before trading equity exposure inside a crypto venue.

Perps in one paragraph, and what changes with RWAs

A perpetual future is a derivative contract that lets a trader take a leveraged long or short position on an asset’s price and hold it indefinitely, because unlike a traditional future it never expires. Its price is tethered to the real asset’s price by the funding rate, a recurring payment between longs and shorts that nudges the contract back toward the underlying whenever it drifts: trade above the reference price and longs pay shorts, encouraging selling; trade below and shorts pay longs. Margin collateralizes the position and liquidation closes it if losses approach the margin posted. If any of that machinery is unfamiliar, the full plain-English guide to perps, funding, and liquidations is the place to start, because everything below assumes it.

Now change one word. A Bitcoin perp tracks an asset that trades on the same rails, around the clock, with deep on-chain and exchange price sources. An RWA perp tracks an asset that trades somewhere else entirely: a stock on Nasdaq, gold in London, oil in futures pits, a currency in the interbank market. The contract mechanics are identical, the same funding rate, the same margin, the same liquidation engine, but the reference price now comes from outside crypto, through an oracle, from a market with its own opening hours, holidays, halts, and corporate events. Every distinctive property of RWA perps, good and bad, flows from that single change. The trader gets exposure to Apple without a brokerage account, without owning shares, without market-hours restrictions, and without the venue holding any Apple at all; the trade-off is that the entire product is only as good as the price feed and the venue’s handling of the moments when the real market is dark.

It is worth separating RWA perps cleanly from their tokenized cousins, because the two are constantly conflated. A tokenized stock is a claim: somewhere, an issuer holds real shares and mints tokens representing them, with custody, redemption, and dividend questions attached. An RWA perp is not a claim on anything; it is a bet settled in stablecoins whose size happens to be indexed to a stock’s price. You cannot redeem a perp for a share, you receive no dividends, and you own nothing except a margin position. The perp’s advantage is precisely that it needs no custody chain, no share purchases, and no issuer, which is why perps on real-world assets scaled faster than tokenized versions of the same assets; its limitation is that it delivers only price exposure, nothing else a share provides.

The oracle problem: teaching a blockchain the price of Tesla

A blockchain cannot see Nasdaq. Every RWA perp therefore depends on an oracle, infrastructure that fetches off-chain prices and delivers them on-chain, and the oracle design is the single most important line in any RWA perp’s documentation, because it determines what price you are liquidated against.

Serious implementations layer defenses. Prices are pulled from multiple independent sources, exchange feeds, institutional data providers, aggregators, and combined into an index price so no single source can be spoofed. The contract then computes a mark price, typically a smoothed or median-filtered version of the index, and it is the mark price, not the last trade on the venue itself, that drives liquidations, so a momentary wick on the perp’s own order book cannot cascade positions. Funding is computed from the gap between the perp’s trading price and the index. All of this mirrors crypto-perp best practice; the RWA twist is that equity and commodity data is licensed, paywalled, and published on the real market’s schedule, so oracles for stocks tend to involve professional data vendors and update rules for what to publish when the source market is closed.

The failure modes are exactly what you would guess. A stale feed liquidates traders against yesterday’s price; a manipulated thin source poisons the index; a decimal error in one vendor’s print, without median filtering, becomes a mass liquidation event. These are not hypotheticals in DeFi’s history, oracle failures are among its most reliably recurring disasters, and the diligence question for any RWA perp venue is boringly specific: how many sources, what aggregation, what staleness rules, and what happened the last time one input misbehaved.

When the market sleeps and the perp does not

Here is the genuinely novel problem RWA perps introduced, one crypto perps never had: the underlying market closes. Nasdaq trades six and a half hours a day, five days a week; the perp trades every hour of every day. For roughly two-thirds of the perp’s life, there is no live reference price at all.

What happens in the gap is price discovery in reverse. During market hours, the perp follows the stock. Overnight and on weekends, the perp becomes the only live market for that exposure, and it drifts on crypto-native flows, news, and speculation, anchored only by traders’ expectations of where the stock will open. Then comes Monday’s open, and the stock either validates the weekend perp price or gaps away from it, at which point funding and arbitrage violently reconcile the two. Traders who study these venues have observed that weekend equity-perp prices function as a real-time forecast of Monday’s open, which is fascinating for researchers and dangerous for the overleveraged: a position that survives the whole weekend can be liquidated in the first minute of the cash session when the reference price jumps to reality.

Corporate actions add a second layer of housekeeping crypto never needed. Stocks split, pay dividends, get halted, and get delisted. A 10-for-1 split must be handled by adjusting the contract or the index, or every position would instantly show a 90% move; dividends create predictable price drops the perp must account for, typically through funding adjustments, since perp holders receive no dividend; a trading halt in the underlying leaves the oracle publishing nothing while the perp keeps trading. Every serious RWA-perp venue has written rules for each event, and the difference between venues is largely the quality of those rules, which nobody reads until the day they matter.

Where RWA perps trade, and how the peg holds in practice

The venue landscape splits along the same centralized-versus-decentralized line as the rest of crypto, with the decentralized side, unusually, having led. On-chain perp exchanges pioneered equity and forex perps because listing a new market there requires an oracle feed and a risk parameter file, not a licensing negotiation: Hyperliquid, the dominant on-chain perp venue with roughly 70% of decentralized open interest, lists perps across crypto, US equities, indices, foreign exchange, and commodities, and peers like dYdX and GMX cover overlapping ground. The centralized side arrived with 2026’s regulatory thaw, Coinbase’s CFTC-supervised perp products and pre-IPO contracts being the landmark, and carries the opposite trade-offs: eligibility gating and custody of your margin, in exchange for regulated recourse and deeper fiat integration. The decentralized share of total perp open interest has climbed to roughly 13.5% from under 4% a year earlier, and RWA listings are a visible driver, because the assets people most want to trade at 3 a.m. are precisely the ones whose official markets are closed.

It is worth dwelling on how the peg actually holds for an RWA perp, because the mechanism is subtler than for crypto perps. With a Bitcoin perp, arbitrageurs enforce the peg directly: if the perp trades rich, they short it and buy spot Bitcoin, a riskless-ish basis trade available around the clock. With a stock perp, the spot leg is only available during market hours, so during the trading day the peg is enforced by the same basis arbitrage, brokerage account on one side, perp on the other, and it holds tightly. Overnight, the arbitrage is unavailable, and the only tether is the funding rate pushing against crowd positioning plus traders’ willingness to fade a drift they expect the open to punish. The result, visible in the data, is a peg that breathes: tight during cash sessions, loose and expectation-driven outside them, snapping taut at each open. Traders who internalize that rhythm stop being surprised by it; funding on equity perps also inherits the rhythm, often resetting sharply around opens as the reconciliation happens.

One further mechanical note: margin and settlement on RWA perps are almost universally in stablecoins, which means a trader’s collateral is exposed to stablecoin risk on top of position risk, and profits on a Tesla short arrive as USDC, not as anything resembling a brokerage balance. The entire experience is crypto-native from margin to settlement; only the price is borrowed from the outside world.

The frontier: perps on companies with no price

The strangest members of the family are the pre-IPO perpetuals, contracts tracking private companies, SpaceX, OpenAI, Anthropic, that have no exchange-listed price to reference at all. Here the oracle question becomes almost philosophical: what does the contract track? In practice, venues construct reference prices from private-market data, secondary-share transaction reports, disclosed funding rounds, and administrator judgment, published as an index that updates far less frequently and far less verifiably than any stock feed. The funding mechanism then tethers the perp to that constructed number.

The appeal is obvious and real: exposure to the most coveted private companies on earth has historically been reserved for venture funds and accredited insiders, and a perp democratizes at least the price bet. The caveats deserve equal billing. The reference price is an estimate with wide error bars, not a market print; liquidity in these contracts is thin relative to major perps; the gap between a private valuation and an eventual IPO price can be enormous in either direction; and a trader is ultimately taking positions against a number a small set of parties assembles. It is the frontier, with everything that word implies, and its emergence within regulated American venues in 2026 says as much about the regulatory moment as about the product.

What the law says a perp is

That regulatory moment is its own story, because RWA perps sit precisely on the fault line American law is redrawing. Perpetual futures spent a decade as an offshore product, and 2026 is the year they came onshore: the CFTC approved US-regulated perpetual contracts, Coinbase secured routes to offer perp-style products to eligible American customers, and equity and pre-IPO perps followed. Immediately, the definitional fight began, most visibly in litigation between CME and the CFTC over what legally distinguishes a perpetual from the dated futures the incumbent exchanges have licensed for decades. The answer matters commercially, an instrument classified one way slots into existing licensing regimes and another way does not, and it matters for RWA perps most of all, because a perp on a stock brushes against securities law in ways a perp on Bitcoin does not. The broader classification architecture being decided in Congress, mapped in this publication’s guide to the pending market-structure law, will determine which agency’s rules these products ultimately live under, and traders should treat the current arrangements as provisional. Meanwhile the traditional-finance side is converging from the other direction, with the DTCC piloting tokenized versions of the very equities these perps synthesize, a pincer movement whose endpoint, real assets and synthetic exposure sharing on-chain rails, is visible even if its timeline is not.

A brief sizing note grounds all of this. Perpetual futures as a class did roughly $61 trillion of volume in 2025 with daily totals routinely above $100 billion, several multiples of spot; RWA contracts are a young single-digit share of that machine, growing from a base near zero two years ago. The scale of the host explains the stakes: even a modest share of perp flow migrating to equity and commodity tickers represents volume that rivals mid-sized national stock exchanges, arriving on rails no securities regulator designed.

Who actually uses RWA perps

The user base sorts into recognizable types, and knowing them clarifies what the product is for. The largest group is access-constrained traders: people in jurisdictions without cheap brokerage access to US equities, for whom a perp on an index or a mega-cap is the first practical route to that exposure at all, leverage aside. The second is the crypto-native hedger: a fund or treasury holding volatile crypto that wants to offset macro exposure, short an index against a token portfolio, hedge dollar strength through forex perps, without opening brokerage relationships and moving capital across the fiat border. The third is the weekend and event trader, using the perp’s always-open market to position around news that breaks when exchanges are closed, earnings leaks, geopolitical shocks, Sunday-night macro, accepting gap risk in exchange for being early. The fourth is the basis and funding trader, harvesting the structural spreads between the perp, the underlying, and the calendar of opens and closes, the professionals for whom the peg’s breathing rhythm is not a hazard but the product itself.

What the list conspicuously lacks is the buy-and-hold investor, and that is the honest boundary of the instrument. A perp position pays funding indefinitely, carries liquidation risk permanently, and confers no ownership; holding one for months as a stock substitute is almost always dominated by simply owning the stock or its tokenized form. RWA perps are a trading and hedging instrument that happens to wear equity tickers, not an investment product, and most of the grief in the category comes from users who mistook one for the other.

The honest risk list

Everything above condenses into a short list anyone should hold against the marketing.

First, you own nothing. An RWA perp delivers price exposure, not shares, dividends, votes, or any claim; in a venue insolvency you are an unsecured creditor of a margin balance. Second, the oracle is the product; a perp on Tesla is really a perp on someone’s Tesla price feed, and its integrity ceiling is the feed’s. Third, the closed-market gap is a structural hazard: weekend positions carry reconciliation risk at every open, and leverage that feels safe on Saturday can be fatal at 9:30 on Monday. Fourth, all the ordinary perp dangers apply at full strength, funding costs that erode crowded positions, liquidation mechanics that work exactly as brutally here as everywhere else, and thin order books where large orders suffer meaningful execution costs. Fifth, the legal ground is actively shifting, and products available today may be restructured, restricted, or geofenced tomorrow.

Against those risks stands what RWA perps genuinely deliver: the first globally accessible, always-open, self-custodial route to price exposure on the world’s most important assets, with shorting and leverage included, no brokerage gatekeeping, and settlement in stablecoins. That is not a small thing, and it explains why volume has arrived faster than infrastructure maturity. The sensible posture is the one perps have always demanded, respect the leverage, know your liquidation price, read the contract specifications, and add the RWA-specific habits: check the oracle design, check the corporate-actions policy, and never carry a weekend position sized for a market that cannot gap.

The larger meaning of the category is worth one closing paragraph. RWA perps are the first instrument through which crypto’s market structure, rather than its assets, went global: what is being exported is not a coin but a way of trading, continuous, self-custodial, leverage-native, and settled in stablecoins, applied to the underlyings the rest of the world already cares about. Whether that export ends with crypto venues capturing equity flow, or with traditional exchanges adopting perpetual mechanics and around-the-clock sessions to repatriate it, and the incumbents’ own moves toward continuous clearing suggest the second path is live, the direction of convergence is set. The trader’s edge, for now, lies in understanding both worlds at once: the perp machinery crypto built, and the market-hours, corporate-actions, oracle-fed reality of the assets it has annexed.

Disclaimer: This article is for educational purposes only and does not constitute investment advice. Perpetual futures are high-risk leveraged instruments and you can lose your entire margin. Product availability and regulation vary by jurisdiction and are changing rapidly as of July 8, 2026. Always do your own research.

Frequently asked questions

Whether crypto ultimately benefits from a new liquidity push from the Federal Reserve may depend less on any direct policy support for digital assets and more on how policymakers react if US markets face a sustained downturn. Analysts speaking to Cointelegraph argue that if the Fed concludes it must “break decades of precedent” to defend equities, the resulting shift in liquidity expectations could improve conditions for risk assets—potentially including Bitcoin and other mainstream cryptocurrencies.

The debate comes as the US equity market has risen sharply in recent years. According to the article, the market has grown by 68% over the past five years and added roughly $6 trillion in value so far this year, even as critics have warned that rapid expansion can be followed by a serious correction. In that scenario, one proposal gaining attention is the Fed supporting equities through purchases tied to exchange-traded funds, an approach that would mark a meaningful escalation in the Fed’s traditional toolkit.

Key takeaways

• Analysts suggest a Fed response to a major equity drawdown could include support mechanisms such as ETF buying, which would be a significant departure from past practice.
• Even without direct central-bank involvement, crypto prices are still described as heavily influenced by US dollar liquidity, real interest rates, and broader risk sentiment.
• Policy actions that signal a “floor” under risk assets could compress the risk premium investors demand for volatile assets like Bitcoin.
• Central-bank bond-market interventions in past crises (including COVID-era ETF purchases) are cited as precedent for how liquidity backstops can alter market behavior.
• However, multiple analysts also note that high inflation may limit how aggressively the Fed can “print money,” leaving other tools on the table.

If equities get defended, liquidity could spill over

Cointelegraph reports that US equities are often treated as deeply embedded in the fabric of the economy—through household portfolios, pensions, and corporate financing. HashKey Group senior researcher Tim Sun told Cointelegraph that the US stock market is “deeply embedded in American household balance sheets, the pension system, corporate financing capabilities, and the structural dynamics of fiscal revenue.”

That structural exposure matters because it raises the political and economic stakes of a prolonged bear market. Cointelegraph also cites Balchunas’s claim that 58% of Americans own stocks, arguing that pressure to avoid extended market weakness could become “very powerful.”

Balchunas further said on Tuesday that the Fed could decide to “break decades of precedent” by buying equity ETFs to support the stock market. The underlying idea is that the Fed might choose a mechanism designed to stabilize liquidity when traditional channels appear to be failing—an approach that could improve risk appetite across the asset class spectrum.

From COVID-era ETF buying to a possible equity backstop

The article points to prior Fed actions during crisis periods to support the claim that central-bank liquidity interventions can become a template. In 2020, the Fed purchased corporate bond ETFs as part of its broader effort to restore liquidity to frozen credit markets during the COVID-19 shock. The article says those measures involved the Fed acquiring $8.7 billion worth of ETFs, helping limit economic damage while credit markets struggled.

Balchunas is described as suggesting that the Fed may be more likely to replicate an “ETF buyer of last resort” posture in future downturns. In the report’s framing, the shift would not necessarily be aimed at crypto—rather, it would be aimed at equities and credit, with digital assets benefiting as secondary effects through changing liquidity and risk conditions.

Cointelegraph also notes that central banks in China and Japan have used indirect equity ETF purchases via authorized intermediaries funded by public resources. While those are not US policy, Balchunas argues the approach is operationally feasible, and that the US could eventually follow if equity stabilization becomes urgent enough.

Why crypto is described as a dollar-liquidity trade

Even if the Fed never targets cryptocurrencies, Sun argues that macro forces still dominate crypto pricing. He told Cointelegraph that a prolonged, severe bear market would “do far more than just erode investor wealth,” adding that it would likely shock consumer spending, compromise pension stability, slow corporate credit expansion, and dent tax revenues.

In that context, cryptocurrencies may not be directly shielded by policy, but the article stresses that their market behavior remains tied to broader financial variables. Sun said crypto’s macro pricing is fundamentally linked to US dollar liquidity, real interest rates, and equity market risk sentiment.

Bitget Wallet chief operating officer Alvin Kan echoed the linkage, telling Cointelegraph that historically, once the Fed takes steps that support risk assets—through rate cuts, balance-sheet expansion, or even targeted ETF purchases—crypto has tended to enter a medium-to-long-term uptrend. He compared such conditions to the 2021 period, when risk appetite returned and capital rotated into high-beta assets.

The report frames this as a change in investor expectations rather than a direct “policy promise” for crypto. As another quoted view within the article describes, when market participants believe there is an effective policy floor under risk assets, the risk premium demanded for highly volatile assets should compress—creating a more favorable environment for Bitcoin and broader crypto exposure.

Limits on Fed action and the tools that remain

Not all analysts see the Fed’s options as unlimited. Jeff Mei, the operating chief of BTSE, told Cointelegraph that while a downturn could prompt action, it’s difficult to envision the Fed “printing more money” given that inflation remains high. In his view, the central bank can still respond using other tools, even if large-scale money creation becomes politically or economically constrained.

This matters for traders and investors because the market impact of any Fed response may depend on what form it takes. A shift toward liquidity provision that calms rates and improves risk sentiment could help crypto, but the direction and magnitude of that benefit likely hinge on the specific policy mechanism and how quickly markets interpret it as credible.

Kan’s comments, as relayed in the article, suggest that a structural backstop for macro conditions could strengthen crypto’s role as both a growth and diversification asset in a world of expanding global liquidity. At the same time, Mei’s caution highlights that high inflation could slow or reshape the policy path, leaving the market to watch not just whether equities are supported, but how and with what instruments.

For now, the key thing readers should monitor is whether policymakers move from general easing expectations to concrete actions that explicitly stabilize equities—especially any steps involving ETF-related mechanisms—and how quickly those signals translate into improved dollar liquidity and lower risk premia across the broader market.

SpaceX has transferred Bitcoin for the first time in six months, while its newly listed SPCX shares have fallen more than 25% from recent highs despite joining the Nasdaq-100.

According to Arkham Intelligence, a wallet linked to Elon Musk’s SpaceX moved just $88 worth of Bitcoin on July 8, ending a six-month period without on-chain activity. Although the transfer was tiny, it quickly fueled speculation across crypto markets because the company’s wallets have historically remained inactive for long periods.

Arkham Intelligence data showed that SpaceX still holds about 18,712 BTC, worth roughly $1.16 billion at current prices. The receiving wallet now contains 614 BTC valued at about $38 million. The blockchain analytics platform also showed that the company’s previous major transfer involved more than 1,016 BTC worth nearly $100 million.

Why did a small Bitcoin transfer attract attention?

While the latest transaction involved only a nominal amount, it arrived after a series of larger Bitcoin sales by corporate treasury holders. Strategy, MARA Holdings, Nakamoto Holdings, and Sequans Communications have all disclosed Bitcoin sales in recent weeks.

Last week, Strategy announced a Bitcoin sale worth about $216 million, adding to investor sensitivity around transfers from large institutional wallets.

Past activity has also added to the attention. Arkham Intelligence data indicates that outflows from SpaceX to unidentified wallets accelerated around the crypto market decline on Oct. 10 last year before slowing as the company’s attention turned toward its public listing.

Meanwhile, Bitcoin traded above $62,000 but remained nearly 2% lower on the day as geopolitical tensions weighed on risk assets. The decline followed renewed U.S.-Iran strikes, while President Donald Trump questioned whether the cease-fire between the two countries would hold after both sides exchanged fresh attacks.

Why has SPCX remained under pressure despite Nasdaq-100 inclusion?

Selling pressure has continued in SpaceX shares even after the company secured a place in the Nasdaq-100. SPCX closed 6.83% lower at $149.47 on Tuesday after touching an intraday low of $148.86, leaving the stock below its IPO debut price and more than 25% below levels seen about a month ago. Premarket trading on Wednesday showed the shares edging up 0.49%.

Nasdaq confirmed that SpaceX qualified for accelerated inclusion under revised eligibility rules that allow certain large newly listed companies to enter the Nasdaq-100 much sooner than previously permitted. The company officially joined the benchmark before the opening bell on July 7, making it one of the fastest IPOs to enter the technology-focused index.

According to JPMorgan, the index addition is expected to generate roughly $4.3 billion in compulsory buying by passive exchange-traded funds and other index-tracking portfolios that must rebalance their holdings to match the Nasdaq-100. Even with that expected inflow, investors continued taking profits after the stock’s strong rally following its market debut.

Wall Street has nevertheless remained constructive on the stock. As previously reported by crypto.news, analysts at Morgan Stanley, Goldman Sachs, and Citigroup have initiated coverage on SpaceX with higher valuation targets.

Morgan Stanley has taken the most bullish stance, assigning a $300 price target while arguing that the company’s long-term growth prospects remain intact despite the recent pullback.